decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
no patent trolls | 200 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
no patent trolls
Authored by: N_au on Tuesday, May 29 2012 @ 07:46 AM EDT
I agree it would be a start. A patent was to help you recover your development
costs, so if you don't sell something that practises the patent, you shouldn't
be able to sue someone over it.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

no patent trolls
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 29 2012 @ 08:24 AM EDT
It is a nice idea. Unfortunately, the US Congress would be
hard pressed to come up with a definition of an NPE that
would do the job. I imagine that many of the NPE's have
close associations with various members of Congress or other
officials close to the issue.

Solutions to the patent troll problem cannot rely on
congressional legislation.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

no patent trolls
Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, May 29 2012 @ 11:16 AM EDT
No sale of patents. No trading of patents. Use by owner or license from owner
only.

---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

shall practice rule
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 29 2012 @ 12:38 PM EDT
I like the idea of a shall practice rule. If you hold a patent you shall
practice, or license to someone who does if there are any takers. This helps
establish the value, if any, of the patent.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Interesting idea, but it needs some work...
Authored by: mtew on Tuesday, May 29 2012 @ 03:20 PM EDT
The first problem that comes to mind is how to protect defensive pools like OIN.
(and how to prevent such pools from corruption by 'the dark side'.)

It might be better if a different angle of is used to attack the problem:

A major issue is the vague and incomplete description of the 'inventions'. I
remember that the PTO ran into storage trouble when it required models as part
of the submission but it was still a good idea. Maybe it would help if
submitting a working model that clearly practiced the invention to the court was
part of the requirement when asking for enforcement or when defending against
requests to invalidate the patent. (This would pretty much kill business method
patents?)

For physically large or expensive inventions where submission would be
impractical, court supervised access to the working model might be an
acceptable substitute.


---
MTEW

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

no patent trolls
Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, May 29 2012 @ 03:20 PM EDT
The other way of making a huge dent is simply to require the plaintiff to
*demonstrate* the patent in action. Using the same apparatus that they
originally based the patent upon.

You always used to have to provide the patent office with a working model. You
should nowadays have to affirm that you have a working model, and you should
have to produce it to the court upon request.

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )